Case law

Com. v. Curry, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 13, 2018

Sabine Panzner-Kaelen, a forensic scientist and qualified expert in DNA profiling, testified to recovering DNA from the .40 Glock firearm, magazines and bullets. Ms. … The “Glock” in question was - 11 - J-S54040-18 in the home where he resided, and it clearly met the definition of “firearm.”

Com. v. Allen, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 2024

, our Supreme Court has also held that a medical expert “who did not perform the autopsy may - 17 - J-S17030-24 testify as to cause of death as long as the testifying expert is qualified … The Medical Examiner clearly demonstrated her independent opinion and did not simply “parrot” the author of the coroner’s report’s conclusions since she disagreed with the

Com. v. Pirl, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2020

“An alleged error must qualify as a clear clerical error (or a patent and obvious mistake) in order to be amenable to correction.” Borrin, supra at 473. Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 548 (Pa. … The circumstances surrounding the statements may be sufficient to establish the existence of a startling event. Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Zipp, D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 5, 2016

The Defendant has the qualified right to bail under Pa. R. Crim. P. 521(B). … This evidence clearly was sufficient to establish that Appellant possessed a firearm on the morning of July 21, 2011.

Com. v. Glendye, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2015

Thus, the Defendant's pro se petition filed on June 10, 2013, was clearly well outside the permitted timeframe. The PCRA does enumerate three specific exceptions to that one year timeframe. … Nor do we believe that the discovery of preexisting case or statutory law qualifies under this exception. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 716 A.2d 1259, 1262 n.5 (Pa. Super. 1998).

Com. v. Dixon, S.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 8, 2017

the identification positive or was it qualified Was by hedging or inconsistencies? … In -court instructions are to be upheld if they clearly and accurately reflect the law. .Here, the trial court . .

In Re: Adoption of: O.D., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 20, 2018

At the time, her income was too great to qualify for aid. She went back six months later. … The record clearly supports these conclusions. (See notes of testimony, 10/31/17 at 9-10, 31-33.)

EQT Production v. Bochter, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2015

[] EQT is a large and well-established corporation engaged in natural gas production. … EQT first claims the trial court erred in failing to determine if the public information component of its GIS compilation, obtained and used by Appellees, qualified as a trade secret. EQT’s Brief at 41.

Com. v. McDaniels, J.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2021

812 A.2d 631, 633 (Pa. 2002), our Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Lord and stated: “In Lord, however, -6- J-S16039-21 this Court eliminated any aspect of discretion and established … Loyd, 567 A.2d 1357 (Pa. 1989) and its progeny are applicable, and the qualified immunity afforded to confidential informants by common law is not applicable to a request for confidential informant information pursuant

Com. v. Toney, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Feb 15, 2019

The three Commonwealth stipulations upon which Appellant premises his argument are that: (1) Alice Applegate, Ph.D., was qualified to testify as an expert;4 (2) “[Appellant], after reading Dr. … It did appear the victim discussed that, it was a little vague in the preliminary hearing, but he clearly agreed that they were on the phone and they were intending to meet.

Com. v. Taylor, E.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2023

regarding the admission of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support to be clearly … Accordingly, we agree with the Commonwealth that the document qualified as self-authenticating under Rule 902(4). See Pa.R.E. 902(4); Chapman, supra.

Upsilon Chapter. Inc. v. Greek Housing Svcs

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 27, 2023

Valentine is not a forensic accountant and was qualified only as a business valuation expert. Appellants contend that Mr. Valentine did not follow forensic accounting standards. … [Appellants’] conduct in this case clearly obfuscated discovery for years.

Com. v. Johnson, A.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 19, 2025

[D]uring their senior year[,] the juror worked at a large hotel/bar/restaurant establishment with [Aunt], but [Halaburda] did not know if they ever actually worked at the same time together. … Section 4527 clearly states that any error “in the selection of jurors” shall not be grounds to set ____________________________________________ 9 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 101-9914.

Agosto, M. v. JRA Express, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 27, 2022

The WPCL only establishes an employee’s right to enforce payment of wages and compensation to which the employee is otherwise entitled by the terms of an agreement. … These are clearly facts in dispute and afactfinder may or may not believe JRA's stated reasons for firing Plaintiff.

In the Int. of: M.A.H.C., Appeal of: M.C.L.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2026

experts reasonably and regularly rely on this type of information merely to practice their profession lends strong indicia of reliability to source material, when it is presented through a qualified … Russell basing his expert opinions, in part, upon “material not in evidence” as he clearly explained that the materials were “of a type customarily relied on by experts in his or her profession.”

Thompson, T. v. The Cafaro Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 2019

-5- J-A08024-19 The trial court based its ruling on Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides: A witness who is qualified … In other words, there is no right to have any particular form of instruction given; it is enough that the charge clearly and accurately explains the relevant law.

Com. v. Pascual, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2025

It is clearly ____________________________________________ 5 After the trial court overruled Appellant’s discovery objection a second time, Appellant made a nearly inaudible statement that the court reporter was unable … In order to qualify as Brady material subject to mandatory disclosure by the Commonwealth, an appellant is “required to identify and explain the actual evidence at issue.” Commonwealth v.

Com. v. Bozek, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Nov 22, 2022

-4- J-S23013-22 determined that Appellant was qualified for placement in a nursing home. Id. … Appellant clearly could not maintain his daily life necessities. Id.

Com. v. Kane, R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 28, 2020

In rendering its holding, this Court examined various Rules of Evidence, including Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 704,9 and observed that Rule 704 “clearly permits both expert and lay opinion testimony on issues that ultimately … But the trial court’s blanket conclusion that the entire trajectory of DHS’s investigation had probative value in Appellant’s criminal case is not sufficient to establish relevance pursuant to Pa.R.E. 401.

Com. v. Powe, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Oct 24, 2023

Redfield St[.], Philadelphia, PA [where] the warrant failed [to] establish a nexus between the crime in question and the residence and failed to set forth any facts establishing probable cause … court considered evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, including a victim impact statement from S.L. and the Commonwealth’s argument that [Appellant] has done nothing in his life that would qualify